“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor,
or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.” ― Adam Smith

Adam Smith was right. He was anti-capitalist, he did not support 'economic' private property. Personal property and economic property are not the
same thing. Capitalism is support of private property for economic use. Socialism is apposed to economic private property, not personal private
property. Adam Smith would have been a socialist if the term had been in use.

The biggest conspiracy played on the working class is the history they teach us, or in actuality the history they don't teach us...

Marxian Socialism must always remain a portent to the historians of Opinion - how a doctrine so illogical and so dull can have exercised so powerful
and enduring an influence over the minds of men, and, through them, the events of history.

John Maynard Keynes

This is coming from John Maynard Keynes of all people!!!

Here's my quote:

Although socialism may be widely interpreted, the means and results are clear. Regardless of which group of individuals that are given ownership
over of the means of production... socialism is systematically conducive towards the plight of entrepreneurship that is the cornerstone of growing
economies.

Although, the following is taken a little out of context, it is fruit for thought.

“We all too often have socialism for the rich and rugged free market capitalism for the poor.”

Originally posted by retirednatureAlthough socialism may be widely interpreted, the means and results are clear. Regardless of which group of individuals that are given ownership
over of the means of production... socialism is systematically conducive towards the plight of entrepreneurship that is the cornerstone of growing
economies.

Not really the point of the thread, but that is nonsense. Socialism does not give groups of individuals ownership over the means of production. It
is the common ownership of the means of production. The whole point being is no one group of people can monopolise the means to produce, and use it
to exploit people who do not own the means to produce. One form of exploitation is no better than another. Why would socialists want to replace
exploitation with exploitation?

Only capitalist economies are stuck with the dilemma of constant growth, and the need to make and maintain profits. Socialism is a needs based
economy, not profit and growth based. It is simply a myth that markets have to grow, or even exist at all, outside of capitalism it is
unnecessary.

This is nothing but the right-wing trying to imply their authoritarianism exists in all economic systems, which is simply not true.

Don't you get it? Socialism is simply an economic system whereby the workers own the means of production in common. Not the state. Workers means
you and me, unless you earn your living from capital and hiring of wage labour. If you're a student you will be a worker one day.

Originally posted by retirednatureAlthough socialism may be widely interpreted, the means and results are clear. Regardless of which group of individuals that are given ownership
over of the means of production... socialism is systematically conducive towards the plight of entrepreneurship that is the cornerstone of growing
economies.

Not really the point of the thread, but that is nonsense. Socialism does not give groups of individuals ownership over the means of production. It
is the common ownership of the means of production. The whole point being is no one group of people can monopolise the means to produce, and use it
to exploit people who do not own the means to produce. One form of exploitation is no better than another. Why would socialists want to replace
exploitation with exploitation?

Only capitalist economies are stuck with the dilemma of constant growth, and the need to make and maintain profits. Socialism is a needs based
economy, not profit and growth based. It is simply a myth that markets have to grow, or even exist at all, outside of capitalism it is
unnecessary.

This is nothing but the right-wing trying to imply their authoritarianism exists in all economic systems, which is simply not true.

How do you think a Socialist economy is instated, maintained, and insured to be sustainable?

Government

I can assure you, economics, ranks high on national defense...

Socialism is absolutely statism!!!

Keep beating around the bush, but the fact is. Socialism does not stand a chance with out government intervention.

I'm not here to bash Socialism, and its many forms. But to argue, that 'Socialism', even as blanketed as a term that it is, is not free from
government dictation. Also, have fun dealing with strikes lol, I hope I don't have to spell that one out for you.

Originally posted by retirednature
How do you think a Socialist economy is instated, maintained, and insured to be sustainable?

Government

Nope. Industry would be organized by workers through voluntary associations, not by top down authority of government.

You do realise that anarchists are socialists right? If socialism required government anarchists would not be socialists.

"Politically we are anarchists, and economically, communists or socialists."Adolph Fischer, Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis
as Defined by Some of its Apostles (1887)

Socialism is absolutely statism!!!

No it isn't!!! Anarchists are socialists!!!

"Anarchism is stateless socialism"Mikhail Bakunin

You can beat that bush all day you would still be wrong.

Why do you think Anarchists call themselves 'Libertarian Socialists'?

Libertarian Socialism is a term essentially synonymous with the word "Anarchism". Anarchy, strictly meaning "without rulers", leads one to wonder
what sort of system would exist in place of one without state or capitalist masters... the answer being a radically democratic society while
preserving the maximal amount of individual liberty and freedom possible.

Libertarian Socialism recognizes that the concept of "property" (specifically, the means of production, factories, land used for profit, rented space)
is theft and that in a truly libertarian society, the individual would be free of exploitation caused by the concentration of all means of
wealth-making into the hands of an elite minority of capitalists.

It comes back to the question I tried to get people to answer in my last thread, how can anarchists be socialists if socialism means a state system?
No one can answer that question without contradicting what they think, so it goes ignored. If you have to ignore the question then be honest with
yourselves! Step outside of the box society has conditioned you into and look at our true history with an open mind.

It amazes me on a site like this that so many people are still doing and thinking exactly like TPTB wants them to, and those same people will say
there is no such thing as social conditioning.

"[The role of anarchists] to help the masses to take the right road in the struggle and in the construction of the new society" and "support their
first constructive efforts, assist them intellectually." However, the working class "once it has mastered the struggle and begins its social
construction, will no longer surrender to anyone the initiative in creative work. The working class will then direct itself by its own thought; it
will create its society according to its own plans." Arshinov, Op. Cit., pp. 240-1

We don't need authoritarian systems. Once the workers own the means of production, they will also be free from the authority of capitalism, and be
free to produce for their needs and desires.

Many people believe that socialism means government or state ownership and control. Who can blame them when that is what the schools teach and
what the media, politicians and others who oppose socialism say? Worse, some people and organizations that call themselves socialist say it, too—but
not the Socialist Labor Party.

Under socialism the workers who operate the industries and services would collectively own and democratically manage them.

Correct! Socialism as a economic system that is designed to be owned collectively by the direct producers of product. It is just a bottom/top
production control scheme that does work well under certain conditions.

Worker ownership is the future, if only people would realise this before it's too late.

Leaders in the sustainability movement believe that the most promising economic development strategy available may be a focus on economic justice.
This would reduce poverty and increase tax revenues, strengthen democracy and the sense of a shared future, reduce the tax burden for social services,
and increase support for investments in education and public infrastructure. All of these are part of a viable and sustainable local economy.

Worker cooperatives can be an important tool in this strategy. According to the Democracy Collaborative at the University of Maryland, cooperatives
can create a green and just economy by building community wealth “in which ownership is broadly shared, locally rooted, and directed toward the
common good. Worker cooperatives are businesses owned and democratically controlled by their workers.

“Employee-owned businesses are generally more profitable, more productive and help to stabilize the local economy,” says Steve Clem, senior
program coordinator for the Ohio Employee Ownership Center. “Just as important, employee-owned firms aren’t likely to move offshore.”

Originally posted by ANOK
You do realise that anarchists are socialists right? If socialism required government anarchists would not be socialists.

"Politically we are anarchists, and economically, communists or socialists."Adolph Fischer, Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific
Basis as Defined by Some of its Apostles (1887)

Socialism is absolutely statism!!!

No it isn't!!! Anarchists are socialists!!!

"Anarchism is stateless socialism"Mikhail Bakunin

You can beat that bush all day you would still be wrong.

Why do you think Anarchists call themselves 'Libertarian Socialists'?

ANOK,

Apologies for coming in late in the day but in catching up on this and your previous thread on this general subject, I noticed you constantly
repeating this incorrect statement. I've read quite a few anarchical writings over the last several months and the only person I've heard described
as an anarcho-socialist is Chomsky.

Regardless of what Fischer, Bakunin or anyone else had to say, the world is awash with people who call themselves Anarchists and would take great
offense to anyone denying them the right to own the means of production and employ others to operate it. They would have no objection to any group
that voluntary chose to own a means of production and some would gladly join in. Would you deny that these people are Anarchists?

Some Anarchists (misguided ones in my opinion) do call themselves "Libertarian Socialist." The word "libertarian" has become seriously tainted by
the "Libertarian Party" that many daren't use it. Fischer might have been right about his circle of associates but to label all Anarchists as
Socialists based on this historic pretext is similar to labelling all Americans as Puritans because they got their first.

We know that Anarchism will work because we practice it everyday in most parts of our lives. We choose where to work, what to wear, what to eat, what
transportation we'll use, what people we associate with, etc. In the absence of a government, we would happily choose how and where to educate
ourselves and our children, what medical services we would use, how we would provide security for ourselves and our property, build roads, you name
it.

Socialism, on the other hand, has a terrible track record. We've seen examples of worker-owned companies competing successfully in the capitalist
world but not in a socialist world. The failed Soviet and Chinese "experiments" don't even count because they were state-owned and were themselves
competing with the capitalist economies.

Socialism and the Zeitgeist Movements' Resource-based economy would be dangerous experiments that, IMO, would require an enforcement body (State) to
prevent people from doing what they would naturally do in time of need or want - voluntarily exchange there services/property/produce for another's
services/property/produce. It's that personal choice that intelligently steers production to meet demand and preserves our individual freedom (such
as it is.)

Hang out over at Freedomainradio.com for awhile and see what modern-day Anarchists are capable of. Stefan Molyneux has produced some excellent
writings/videos on this subject and there's plenty available from others on Mises.org.

Great post as usual! You are correct on all counts. Yet, the problem with carrying out revolutionary socialism is the fact that lacking a strong
state, while Capitalist states surround any socialist society, leaves all those people within the socialist society at a great disadvantage of being
invaded and taken over by the Capitalist.

The way I see it, we could go into two different directions in order to protect the socialist society.

1) Socialism in one nation(strong socialist state)
2)Permanent Revolution(weak socialist state or almost no state at all)

Both have very positive advantages and very negative disadvantages. I will keep this post brief as I would like to see what others have to say about
protecting the socialist society with the lack of a strong state.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.